Home Briefs Date Book Hot Topics In the Wind News Your Turn!

Continue the Housecleaning Begun in 2004

Almost two years ago, I started this project called "Portsmouth City Watch" (PCW)as a way of bringing to the citizenry significant information about the workings of our city. Some elected officials, and the elite that influences their decisions, would prefer to keep important matters out of public view, but PCW has worked to open up access. The assistance and support of others in the community have been gratifying. Unfortunately, people with "day jobs" can dedicate only so much time to volunteer work, so some important issues have not received adequate treatment. Today I want to focus on what I deem a matter of major significance: the May 2, 2006, Portsmouth City Council election.

As an advocate for government that serves the people, I want to encourage my fellow citizens to continue the "housecleaning" that we began two years ago. Absent any exit polling data from the May 2004 election, assertions about what caused Portsmouth voters to "retire" former Council Members J. Thomas "Tommy" Benn and Cameron C. Pitts are speculative. With that disclaimer issued, I suggest that outrage over chronic under funding of public education, the massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars to the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame and Museum (VSHF), and inattention to neighborhood quality issues were very significant contributors to the outcome. Secondarily, I believe the efforts of Council Members William E. "Bill" Moody, Jr., and Charles B. Whitehurst, Sr., to grease the skids under their colleagues also factored into the equation.

Now what goes around is coming around, and Council Members Moody, Marlene W. Randall, and Whitehurst are facing the voters for their quadrennial "job evaluations." Although increased funding for education was the centerpiece of Randall's initial election bid in 2002, she, like her seasoned colleagues Moody and Whitehurst, voted for the $900,000 funding package for the VSHF in a year when the schools ended up with much less city money than they had sought. Her defense of that vote showed a woeful lack of understanding of how the VSHF commitment undercut the ability of the city to give more for education. She did not "get it" at the time and, despite her additional time on council since then, she still seems ill-prepared to deal with complex issues.

Whitehurst, who was again running for reelection as of this date (subject to change without notice) seems to have ensured his own "retirement." When he announced his reentry into the race at a civic league forum a short time ago, I opined that he had made the right choice (withdrawal) the first time. If as politically potent a force as former Sheriff Gary Waters could not succeed as a write-in candidate, I doubt that Whitehurst has a prayer. I expect that his "quitter's remorse" will only draw votes from his former/current running mates, Moody and Randall.

I consider the Sports Hall of Fame vote sufficient grounds for turning out the Tiresome Trio of Moody, Randall, and Whitehurst. Since Whitehurst has already effectively taken himself out, that leaves only Moody and Randall to consider. A mathematical impossibility, however, precludes the full housecleaning that I would prefer. Four ballot candidates seeking three positions means that either Moody or Randall has to go back for another four years, with Edwin R. "Ed" Forlines and Douglas L. "Doug" Smith, the challengers in this race, filling the other two seats. Given that reality, I maintain that the "lesser evil" scenario is to keep Randall and oust Moody.

As a believer in second chances, I will to concede Randall the benefit of the doubt. Having served just under four years, she could still be ascending the learning curve and, perhaps, do better next time. June 30, 2006, however, marks the end of eight years on City Council for Moody. If I had any doubts about his unfulfilled potential at the end of his first term, he has, by now, eliminated all uncertainty. I believe we have seen his best moves, and they are nothing special. On the circumstances, then, with no challenger to replace her, I would have to stay the course with Randall.

Other reasons to replace Moody abound; I lack the time to cover them all at this particular moment. I will, therefore, focus on what I see as his most egregious deficiencies as a public servant. First, I am convinced that, gender considerations aside, Pam Tillis's hit song, "Cleopatra, Queen of Denial," could have been written for him. Like a great many politicians, he is right there to take credit for what goes well and equally ready to blame somebody else for what goes badly. (As former Senator Charles Robb said of his successor, George Allen, if the sun rose during Allen's time as Governor, he was likely to claim it was his doing.) A case in point is the nTelos Pavilion, which Moody voted to fund at every level. Initially, a five-million dollar proposal, the price tag for the open-air venue grew to eight and then thirteen million, with Moody accepting each increase. Like Benn and Pitts, he contended that revenues for the project would pay the debt service and return a revenue dividend to the city, resulting in a reduced property tax burden for the taxpayers. In fact, nTelos has drained money from the general fund every year of its existence and increased the burden on the citizenry. Despite a new contract with a different management company, we have no prospects of breaking even, to say nothing of earning a profit, until the bonds are repaid in another five years.

In his bid for reelection Moody has sought to distract attention from his role in the decision by suggesting the sale of nTelos to a private concern. On the surface the idea seems plausible - cut our losses, stop the cash drain, and, perhaps, recoup some of the public investment. The proposal has a glaring flaw, however. Who would buy it without a chance of turning a profit? The taxpayers of Portsmouth have provided a safety net for the bondholders who loaned the money for construction of the nTelos Pavilion. With us out of the picture, the only way for a private operator to profit would be for the city to sell the venue at a "going out of business" sale price. It is a "lose-lose" proposition for the citizens, and typical of the Moody approach.

If you think I am wrong, turn your attention to the sale of another property bearing the nTelos brand, the office building on Porte Centre Parkway. The city put it up under the "build it, and they will come" philosophy. nTelos came, bought it for a bit over two million less than the citizens paid for it, and Moody like Benn and Pitts declared victory. Until a tenant came along to occupy the floor space nTelos didn't need, the taxpayers had to absorb $350,000 per year of debt service, over and above the direct loss on the building sale.

Moody has also been less than forthcoming about his position on out of state trash. With a video camera in the room during the public work sessions on the issue, although he did stare down the camera barrel a lot. His longtime reelection teammate Charles Whitehurst, however, went on and on about the positive impact of the Covanta deal on regional tipping (waste disposal) fees and the potential financial benefits to Portsmouth. (The video record also shows Randall nodding her head continuously,  presumably in approval, as Whitehurst extolled the virtues of signing an agreement.) When Moody finally got his chance to speak on the matter, he merely asked whether Covanta would be picking up the tab for bulkhead improvements at the site of the proposed waste-handling facility. So much for the "power of inquiry" that Moody recently touted as the effective council member's most important tool.

The Moody-Randall campaign has made much of Candidate Ed Forlines's comments in the public hearing at Willett Hall on the waste-shipment facility proposal, accusing Forlines of inconsistency. What is interesting about the effort to discredit Forlines is that the attack relies on a fragment of testimony at the January 29 hearing at Willett Hall. (More on this matter appears later in this editorial.) Another interesting aspect is that the full transcript appears not to exist in any publicly accessible repository, making verification difficult. Furthermore, Moody appears to have made no documented statement on the issue in any public setting until after he had a chance to gauge public sentiment. That is good politics but poor leadership.

Moody has an another "out" on the issue, as well. As one seventh of the city council, his view of imported trash has the force of policy only if it reflects that of at least three other members. Consequently, he can assert that he opposes a contract with Covanta and let the mayor and the three members not seeking reelection this year take the heat for an unpopular decision. He is experienced in that kind of maneuver. In 2001, for example, he voted against the "must pass" budget for FY 2002, which contained a six cents per hundred real estate tax hike. (Like Moody, Mayor James W. Holley, III, and Whitehurst "dodged the bullet" on that rate increase.) His "no" vote came with no suggestions for alternate revenue sources or items to cut from the budget. Worse yet, he had voted for every project that had necessitated an increase in property taxes. The four members of council who did not have to face voter wrath the following year shouldered the burden themselves. (Budget adoption in 2001 was well behind schedule because of the difficult financial picture of the year ahead.) Moody fell into line with his colleagues, however, on increasing the cigarette and guest lodging tax rates, no doubt assuming that those levies were not going to get him into trouble with most taxpayers. (See page fourteen of the City Council Minutes of May 22, 2001, a document that is accessible to the public through the Office of the City Clerk and the city web site for verification.) So, Moody has evolved a "Tom Sawyer" approach to holding office: manipulate others to do the unpleasant work for you.

Returning to Moody's vaunted "power of inquiry," I remind my fellow citizens that the utility of a tool is no greater than the skill of the person wielding it. On numerous occasions, Moody has demonstrated his lack of proficiency in asking the right questions. In the wake of the disclosures about missing nTelos financial reports, a citizen's question about who on council had been monitoring Renaissance Hotel performance created new concern. Up to that point, Moody made no public requests for financial data about our biggest public-private partnership. When hotel management and the chief financial officer of the city jointly presented a report at a public work session some weeks later, Moody expressed great relief on learning that the hotel was making a profit. What he failed to ask, however, was whether it was making a profit for the public whose taxes were underwriting that investment to the tune of $2.6 million per year. (Based on the figures provided by hotel management, the PCW analysis suggested a net loss to the taxpayers, as of 2004, of $900,000 to $1,100,000 per year.) Similarly, Moody has never publicly requested figures on the gains or losses from city investments at Victory Crossing. He talks in glowing terms of returning retail to Portsmouth without having any idea of the real cost to the residents of our city.

On the campaign trail Moody has directed more negative comments toward Ed Forlines than Doug Smith. Possibly, the Tiresome Trio's handlers consider Forlines the bigger threat to Moody's reelection bid. Forlines has built bridges across the community with his ongoing efforts to increase school funding, improve housing quality and living conditions in neighborhoods, and implement a career officer pay plan to retain experienced police officers. Particularly noteworthy was his success in forging a coalition among Van Lefcoe alumni, the Chamber of Commerce, and the faith community to press for adequate funding of education well before the results of the 2004 election demonstrated to Moody how support for schools generate political capital. That Moody would feel threatened by someone with that leadership capacity is no surprise.

A full-page attack ad in today's Portsmouth Currents, claimed as the handiwork of "The Committee for Better Government in Portsmouth," whoever they are, quotes Forlines's previously referenced statement from the "[m]eeting held at Willett Hall - January 29, 2996" [emphasis added]. I have to wonder if the people who demonstrated such a lack of attention to detail on that small particular might also have committed significant sins of omission (for example, proper context) on others. Perhaps these are the same quality control-challenged folks who designed the 2002 Moody-Whitehurst billboards (see the picture on the right) with Portsmouth misspelled as "Portmouth." Their failure to identify themselves by name casts further doubt on their credibility.

In closing, I urge you to keep the momentum going on May 2, 2006. Finish the work begun in 2004.Turn out Bill Moody, ignore Charles Whitehurst, reelect Marlene Randall, and add the "new faces" of Ed Forlines and Doug Smith to the City Council group photo. Let's provide Moody and Whitehurst, like Benn and Pitts before them, more well-deserved time with their families.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Home Briefs Date Book Hot Topics In the Wind News Your Turn!